Bevacizumab Biosimilar Research Articles

Efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization combined with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular careinoma (uHCC). Methods: The clinical data of 64 patients with unresectable HCC, who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University between January 2021 and December 2023, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into a combination group (n=43, receiving TACE combined with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar) and control group (n=21, receiving only sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar). Survival curves were drawn by Kaplan-Meier method, and the median overall survival (mOS) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) were compared between the two groups. According to the mRECIST criterion, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were compared between the two groups. The occurrences of adverse events in both groups were recorded. Results: The mOS and mPFS in the combination group were 22.3 months and 12.4 months, respectively, which in the control group was 11.6 months and 6.4 months, respectively. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P=0.001 and P=0.002). The ORR and DCR in the combination group were 62.8% and 95.3% respectively, which were significantly higher than 19.0% and 57.1% respectively in the control group (all P<0.01). No statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe adverse events existed between the two groups (P=0.518). Conclusion: TACE combined with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar has efficacy and safety than sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar alone.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Biosimilars to Originator for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Ontario has publicly funded biosimilar bevacizumab for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) since 2019. Clinical trials demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars to originator bevacizumab. The objective of this study was to assess real-world safety and effectiveness of the implementation of bevacizumab biosimilars compared with originator bevacizumab in patients with mCRC. This was a population-based, retrospective study comparing Ontario patients starting treatment with bevacizumab biosimilars between August 12, 2019, and March 31, 2021, and starting treatment with originator bevacizumab between July 2, 2008, and August 11, 2019. Safety outcomes included death within 30 days of the last dose received, any hospitalization, direct hospitalization, and hospitalization resulting from bevacizumab-related toxicity, chemotherapy-related toxicity, and febrile neutropenia. Event rates were assessed using negative binomial and logistic regression. The effectiveness outcome was overall survival, calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression. A subgroup analysis compared safety and effectiveness outcomes between patients on bevacizumab biosimilar products and matched comparators. We identified 8,996 patients who initiated first-line treatment of bevacizumab for mCRC. Accounting for duration of follow-up, no significant differences were observed in the rate of hospitalization between treatment groups. No differences in overall survival (log-rank P>.05) or hazard ratios (propensity score-matched hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.16) were observed in the crude and propensity score-matched cohorts. Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness patterns. The demonstrated similarity in safety and effectiveness between bevacizumab biosimilars and originator bevacizumab provides further support for the use of and confidence in biosimilar products.

Retrospective analysis of survival and safety of bevacizumab biosimilar and original drug combination chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.

The advent of bevacizumab has considerably transformed the therapeutic landscape for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients devoid of specific genetic mutations. A pivotal milestone has been reached with the recent approval of a bevacizumab biosimilar, following rigorous phase III clinical investigations, poised to augment NSCLC therapeutic strategies. This retrospective analysis encompasses a large-scale study conducted between January 2021 and December 2023, involving 1058 NSCLC patients (metastatic or locally advanced stages). The research design entailed a comparative assessment of the safety and efficacy profiles of combined therapies using the original bevacizumab and its biosimilar, adhering to RECIST v1.1 criteria. Adverse event grading was standardized using the National Cancer Institute's CTCAE v5.0. Notably, the biosimilar demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 29.79% in 606 patients, closely paralleling the 27.41% ORR observed in 452 patients receiving the original drug, with insignificant risk differences (-0.03) and a risk ratio of 0.987, affirming equivalence. Progression-free survival (PFS) was influenced by radiation status, treatment lines, and regimen combinations, while dosage intensity and genetic factors had negligible impacts. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was slightly higher in the biosimilar group (75.11%) versus the original drug group (72.78%), with grade 3 or more severe TEAEs occurring in 23.6% and 18.5% of patients, respectively (Detailed criteria for the definition and assessment of TEAEs have been added to the Methods section, including the use of the National Cancer Institute's CTCAE v5.0 for grading). The study affirms that bevacizumab biosimilars offer equivalent therapeutic efficacy and a similar safety profile to the originator product in the management of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. The tolerability of the toxicity profile, coupled with the absence of unforeseen adverse reactions, underscores the viability of biosimilar bevacizumab as a valuable addition to NSCLC treatment regimens. These findings also imply potential benefits for a broader patient population beyond clinical trial confines through the adoption of biosimilar beta-adrenergic blocking agents.

Efficacy and Safety of an Indian Bevacizumab BIOSimilar (BEVATAS) for Retinal Vein Occlusion (BIOS-RVO Study).

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bevatas®, an Indian bevacizumab biosimilar, in the management of both Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) and Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO) (BIOS-RVO). The BIOS-RVO study was a retrospective interventional study conducted at a single tertiary eye care facility in India. 154 treatment-naïve eyes with RVO (CRVO: 62 eyes; BRVO: 92 eyes) received intravitreal bevacizumab biosimilar (IVBb) therapy. Data on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-therapy. The average age of participants was approximately 55.99 (+12.56) years, with a nearly equal gender distribution (M:F = 49.4:50.6). Age differences between BRVO and CRVO groups were not significant (P=0.501), but gender distribution varied significantly (P=0.035), with more males in the CRVO group. Significant improvements in BCVA were observed in both CRVO and BRVO groups at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year compared to baseline (P<0.001). Both groups showed significant reductions in CMT throughout the follow-up period (P<0.001). The mean number of injections was higher in the CRVO group (5.27[±1.45]) compared to the BRVO group (4.27 [±1.28]) (P<0.001). Significant IOP increases were observed at 1 month (P<0.001) and 6 months (P<0.001) in both BRVO and CRVO groups, although not clinically significant. Safety analysis revealed no additional ocular or systemic adverse events during the study period. The BIOS-RVO study demonstrates that Bevatas is an effective and safe treatment option for both CRVO and BRVO. These findings support the use of Bevatas as a cost-effective alternative to branded anti-VEGF agents, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Versus Originator Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study Using Real-World Data

ObjectivesMVASI (Amgen) and Zirabev (Pfizer) are 2 of the earliest bevacizumab biosimilars approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to confirm and quantify the real-world cost savings and cost-effectiveness of MVASI and Zirabev relative to originator bevacizumab for patients with mCRC. MethodsWe conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, where originator and biosimilar bevacizumab are universally publicly funded. All mCRC patients who received originator bevacizumab between January 2008 and August 2019 or biosimilar bevacizumab between August 2019 and March 2021 were propensity score matched (1:4) to adjust for baseline differences. Total 1-year patient-level costs (CAD) and effects (life years [LY] and quality-adjusted LYs) were calculated from the public health payer’s perspective. Primary outcomes included incremental net monetary benefit and incremental net health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses included a subgroup analysis by biosimilar type (MVASI/Zirabev) and a 2-year analysis. ResultsThe matched cohort included 747 biosimilar cases and 2945 comparators. Bevacizumab biosimilars were associated with an incremental cost of −$6379 (95%CI: −9417, −3537) (ie, cost saving) and incremental effect of 0.0 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.02) LY and −0.01 (95% CI: −0.03, 0) quality-adjusted LYs gained. Incremental net monetary benefit and INHB estimates were $6331 (95% CI: 6245, 6417) and 0.127 LY (95% CI: 0.125, 0.128), respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/life year gained, with all estimates indicating the cost-effectiveness of biosimilar bevacizumab. Cost-effectiveness remained consistent across biosimilar brand subgroups and 2-year sensitivity analyses. ConclusionBevacizumab biosimilars demonstrated real-world cost savings while providing similar survival benefit as originator bevacizumab, confirming the initial expectations of their implementation and supporting health system sustainability.

Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of biosimilars of bevacizumab in näive patients with diabetic macular edema.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy restores retinal architecture and enhances vision in diabetic macular edema (DME). Bevacizumab is an off-label anti-VEGF drug that effectively treats DME. The safety and efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilars, which are more affordable than the original medication, still need to be established. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of biosimilars for treating patients with naïve DME across various price ranges that are accessible in the Indian market. Two biosimilars, BevaciRelTM (Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.) and ZyBev (Cadila Healthcare Limited), were compared to their original, Avastin (Roche Products [India] Pvt. Ltd.), in a randomized, control study. Three end-notes were used to assess safety and efficacy: persistence, improvement, and adverse events. Cost-effective analysis was carried out using a decision-tree analysis model. This study included 69 (59%) men and 54 (41%) women with naïve DME. The cohort had an average log MAR visual acuity of 0.87 ± 0.22, and the central retinal thickness at baseline on OCT was 398.5 ± 37.61 μm. The visual acuity showed a similar improvement, and there was a decrease in central retinal thickness as observed on OCT across the groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10.8. The biosimilars of bevacizumab are safe and efficacious in treating DME in a cost-effective manner.

Efficacy and safety of SBRT combined with sintilimab and IBI305 in patients with advanced HCC and previously failed immunotherapy: study protocol of a phase 2 clinical trial

IntroductionHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in China. The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and antiangiogenic drugs, such as bevacizumab and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has...

Safety of marketed biosimilar monoclonal antibody cancer treatments in the US: a disproportionality analysis using the food and drug administration adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database

ABSTRACT Background By 31 December 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 12 biosimilar monoclonal antibody cancer treatments. This study detected disproportionate adverse event (AE) reporting signals and compared safety profile of individual biosimilars to their originator biologics and between each pair of biosimilars. Research design and methods The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System data (6/1/2018–12/31/2022) were used to identify AE reports for rituximab, bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and their marketed biosimilars. Reporting odds ratios and empirical Bayesian geometric mean were computed to detect reporting disproportionality in serious, death, and specific AEs between studied biologics/biosimilars and all other drugs. Results Significant AE reporting signals were identified: 1) death for biological rituximab, pruritus for biosimilar rituximab-pvvr, and infusion-related reactions for biological rituximab and biosimilar rituximab-pvvr (significantly higher ROR for rituximab-pvvr than biological rituximab, p < .0001); 2) death for biological bevacizumab and biosimilar bevacizumab-bvzr (significantly higher ROR for bevacizumab-bvzr than biological bevacizumab, p < .0001), hypertension, platelet count decreased (PCD), and proteinuria for biological bevacizumab and biosimilar bevacizumab-awwb (significantly higher ROR of PCD for bevacizumab-awwb than originator bevacizumab, p = .001); and 3) rash for biosimilar trastuzumab-anns. Conclusions Findings call for large, longitudinal studies to examine causality of certain AEs with rituximab-pvvr and bevacizumab biosimilars.

Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer

ABSTRACT Introduction The cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy (CT) and drug wastage in treating platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRrOC) was assessed. Methods A three-state partitioned-survival model to compare the clinical and economic outcomes in the treatment of patients with PRrOC from a Taiwan healthcare prospective, extrapolated to two years based on data obtained from the JGOG3023 clinical trial. The primary outcomes of the model were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results In the base-case scenario, using vials of bevacizumab biosimilar (Bevbiol) plus chemotherapy, the ICER was (new Taiwan dollar) NT$ 4,555,878 per QALY gained. The incremental cost savings of an incremental 2.02 QALYs were NT$ 1,605,828 if weight-based Bevbiol plus chemotherapy were used, but the ICER remained high at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. If the cost of Bevbiol were reduced to 50% per vial, adding it to CT would be cost-effective at an acceptable WTP threshold of NTD 2,994,200, with an ICER of NT$ 2,975,484. Conclusions Bevacizumab biosimilars in mg/kg dosage form with chemotherapy are still not cost-effective in Taiwan, but using weight-based dosing will reduce drug waste and save treatment costs.

Real-world clinical efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilar in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Bevacizumab is extensively used in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous clinical trials have proven the clinical efficacies of bevacizumab biosimilars (BB). Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between bevacizumab reference product (RP) and BB among advanced NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. We retrospectively analyzed stage IV metastatic NSCLC patients who were treated with bevacizumab as part of a combination therapy. Patients were categorized into chemotherapy (CT) and epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) groups. We compared the patients' characteristics, treatment efficacy, and adverse events between RP and BB in the two treatment groups. From January 2020 to July 2022, a total of 171 patients who underwent combination therapy with bevacizumab were screened. Seventy-nine of these patients met the study's inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the final analysis. We utilized the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and the log-rank test to compare PFS between groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of PFS. Within the CT cohort, 34 patients were treated with RP in combination with platinum and pemetrexed, and 25 patients received a combination regimen with BB. The median PFS was 6.9 months in the RP group and 8.9 months in the BB group (p = 0.255). Within the EGFR-TKI cohort, 20 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC received first-line treatment with EGFR-TKI plus bevacizumab. Of these patients, 9 were treated with a combination regimen that included RP, and 11 patients received EGFR-TKI in combination with BB. The median PFS was 18.4 months for the RP group and 13.6 months for the BB group (p = 0.363). In our advanced NSCLC patients, we found no difference in clinical outcomes when receiving treatment with RP or BB. Given a combination regimen, BB was as effective as RP together with either CT or EGFR-TKIs.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilar (Encoda) Compared With Reference Bevacizumab (Avastin) in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Real-World Study.

The bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda), which was approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in China in 2019, is a biosimilar of bevacizumab. Approval of bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was based on the extrapolation principle of biosimilar. However, there is currently no available data regarding the efficacy and safety of both bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) and bevacizumab in patients with mCRC. The present real-world study included patients with mCRC who received first-line therapy with either bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) or bevacizumab combined with backbone chemotherapy between April 2021 and December 2022. The overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint of the study. Bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) would be considered equivalent to bevacizumab if it met any of the following criteria: the 90% CI for ORR risk ratio of bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda): bevacizumab was included within the predefined equivalence range (0.75 to 1.33) as specified by the NMPA or within the predefined equivalence range (0.73 to 1.36) as specified by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the 95% CI for the ORR risk difference of 2 groups was included within the predefined equivalence range (-0.12 to 0.15) as specified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The study included a total of 436 patients, with 234 receiving bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) and 202 receiving bevacizumab. The ORR was 42.3% (95% CI: 35.9% to 48.9%) in the bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) group and 42.1% (95% CI: 35.2% to 49.2%) in the bevacizumab group. The ORR risk ratio and risk difference were 1.005 (90% CI: 0.836 to 1.210) and 0.002 (95% CI: -0.091 to 0.095), respectively, both included within the prespecified equivalence range. The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 groups. This real-world study is the first to demonstrate the efficacy equivalence of bevacizumab biosimilar (Encoda) and bevacizumab in first-line treatment of mCRC.

Efficacy of an Indian Bevacizumab BIOSimilar (BEVATAS) for Type 1 and Aggressive Posterior Retinopathy of Prematurity (BIOS-ROP Study).

To evaluate the role of an Indian bevacizumab biosimilar (Bevatas®), for the management of type 1 retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and aggressive posterior ROP (APROP) over 24-weeks. A retrospective, single-center, interventional study of 144 eyes of type 1 (100 eyes) and APROP (44 eyes). All eyes received a single dose of 0.625mg Bevatas injection, and were advised additional laser therapy for suboptimal response. The study population had a mean gestational age of 28.94 (±2.32) weeks, an average birth weight of 1.2 (±0.34) kg, and modest male predominance (52.05%). Complete regression of ROP was seen in 65.97% of 144 eyes after 24 weeks of bevacizumab monotherapy, and in 97.22% of eyes (140 eyes) after adding laser photocoagulation. The remaining four eyes (all had APROP) developed Stage 4 ROP and needed vitreous surgery. After monotherapy with bevacizumab biosimilar, type 1 ROP eyes had significantly higher rate of complete ROP regression than APROP eyes (87% vs 18.18%; P<0.00001). All eyes with type 1 ROP, and 90.91% of eyes with APROP, regressed after receiving additional laser therapy. The study population experienced no ocular or systemic adverse effects. The BIOS-ROP study demonstrates that intravitreal bevacizumab biosimilar monotherapy offers significant benefit for type 1 ROP, but not APROP. Low-cost biosimilars can help sustain healthcare systems in lower-middle income countries (LMICs) with escalating healthcare expenditures. They can also improve healthcare equity by making vision-saving therapies like bevacizumab more affordable and accessible.

Evaluation of bevacizumab biosimilar on wound healing complications in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis in anorectal medicine.

Complications related to wound healing pose substantial obstacle in the management of colorectal cancer (CRC), specifically in the field of anorectal medicine. Biosimilars of bevacizumab have emerged as crucial therapeutic agents in the management of these complications. With the particular emphasis on effects of Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus on wound healing among patients diagnosed with CRC, this review underscores the potential of this anorectal medication to improve patient outcomes and was aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus in relation to complications associated with wound healing in patients with CRC. The assessment centers on its therapeutic potential and safety profile within the domain of anorectal medicine. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was performed, resulting in the identification of 19 pertinent studies out of an initial 918. Priority was given to assessing the safety and adverse effects of Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus in conjunction with its effectiveness in wound healing. The extracted data comprised the following: study design, patient demographics, comprehensive treatment regimens, wound healing-specific outcomes and adverse effects. The evaluation of study quality was conducted utilizing the instruments provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus demonstrates efficacy in the management of wound healing complications among patients with CRC, with a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of the original Bevacizumab, according to the analysis. Notably, several studies reported improved rates of wound healing in relation to the biosimilar. The safety profiles exhibited similarities to the anticipated anti-VEGF agent effects. In wound management, the biosimilar also demonstrated advantages in terms of prolonged efficacy. In addition, analyses of cost-effectiveness suggested that the use of biosimilars could result in cost reductions. Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus exhibited potential as an anorectal medication for the effective management of wound healing complications in patients with CRC. This has substantial ramifications for improving the quality of patient care, encompassing the affordability and effectiveness of treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab biosimilars for metastatic colorectal cancer: A comparative study using real-world data.

9 Background: MVASI (Amgen) and Zirabev (Pfizer) are two of the earliest bevacizumab biosimilars approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). While the introduction of biosimilars present an opportunity to alleviate the financial toxicity owing to the escalating costs of novel biologics, biosimilars should be comparatively assessed against the reference biologic in a real-world setting to confirm that they are indeed cost-saving or cost-effective after implementation. In this study, we aimed to confirm and quantify the real-world cost-savings of MVASI and Zirabev relative to originator bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with mCRC. Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, where originator and biosimilar bevacizumab are universally publicly funded. Capturing the entire population of Ontario, we assessed all mCRC patients who received originator bevacizumab between January 1, 2008, and August 11, 2019, or biosimilar bevacizumab between August 12, 2019, and March 31, 2021. Biosimilar cases and originator bevacizumab controls were matched 1:4 using propensity score methods to adjust for differences at baseline. We calculated 1-year total patient-level costs (in Canadian dollars) and effects (in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)) from the public health payer’s perspective. The primary outcomes for estimating cost-effectiveness were incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) and incremental net health benefit (INHB), calculated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds ranging from $50,000-200,000 per life year gained. Sensitivity analyses included a subgroup analysis by biosimilar type (MVASI/Zirabev) and an analysis using a 2-year time horizon. Results: The final propensity score matched cohort included 747 biosimilar cases and 2,945 controls. Bevacizumab biosimilars were associated with an incremental cost of -$6,379 (95% confidence interval (CI): -9,417, -3,537) (i.e., cost-saving) and an incremental effect of 0.0 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.02) life years gained and -0.01 (95% CI: -0.03, 0) QALY gained. INMB and INHB estimates indicated that biosimilar bevacizumab is cost-effective at all WTP thresholds assessed, with results remaining consistent across our biosimilar type subgroups and 2-year sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Bevacizumab biosimilars demonstrated real-world cost-savings while providing similar survival benefit as originator bevacizumab, confirming the initial expectations of their implementation.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of a Bevacizumab Biosimilar (ABP 215) in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients in Canada

BackgroundABP 215 is a biosimilar to the reference product, bevacizumab, and was one of the first biosimilars approved by Health Canada for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study aimed to address gaps in real-world evidence (RWE) including patient characteristics, treatment safety (primary objective), and effectiveness (secondary objective) for first-line ABP 215 therapy in Canadian patients with mCRC. Materials and MethodsRetrospective data were collected in 2 waves, at least 1 year (Wave 1) or 2 years (Wave 2) after commercial availability of ABP 215 at each participating site. ResultsA total of 75 patients from Wave 1 and 164 patients from Wave 2 treated with a minimum of 1 cycle of ABP 215 were included. At least one safety event of interest (EOI) was recorded for 34.7% of Wave 1 and 42.7% of Wave 2 patients. The median progression free survival (PFS) for Wave 1 and 2 patients were 9.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.71, 11.90) and 21.38 (95% CI: 15.82, not estimable) months, respectively. Median overall survival was not estimable for Wave 1 and was 26.45 months for Wave 2. ConclusionThe safety and effectiveness of ABP 215 observed in this real-world study were comparable to clinical trial findings and to other RWE with longer PFS in the current study.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of a Bevacizumab Biosimilar, in Combination with Chemotherapies, in Nonresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study.

Ranjith K.The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar (DRL_BZ) with the innovator Avastin (reference medicinal product [RMP]) in patients with nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over a period of 9 months and advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over 6 months. The study was planned as a randomized, double-blind trial. In part A, a total of 117 mCRC patients were intended to receive 5 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 2 weeks along with mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy for a maximum of 18 cycles. In part B, 60 NSCLC patients were to receive 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks along with pemetrexed and carboplatin for the initial four cycles, followed by pemetrexed for another four cycles. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6) in both subparts. The anticipated sample size was 106 evaluable mCRC patients to achieve 85% statistical power for concluding noninferiority with a margin of half the difference (18.8%) between DRL_BZ and Avastin, along with a pilot study involving 60 evaluable NSCLC patients. Safety comparison included assessing adverse events (AEs), infusion reactions, and lab abnormalities. Immunogenicity comparison involved the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Pharmacokinetic comparison was planned after the first and fourth dosing cycles of treatment in 24 NSCLC patients. The PFS6 for mCRC patients treated with DRL_BZ and RMP was 57.8% and 50% respectively, with a difference in efficacy of 7.8 (-8.7, 23.7). The PFS9 was 31.1% and 22.9%, with a difference of 8.2% (-6.9%, 22.9%). The objective response rate (ORR) for DRL_BZ and RMP was 28.8% and 22.4%, while the disease control rate (DCR) was 44.2% and 37.9% respectively. For NSCLC patients, the PFS6 was 44% and 45%, showing a difference of -1.0 (-4.2, 22.1). The ORR was 41.4% and 48.1%, and the DCR was 62.1% and 63%. The frequency, type, and severity of AEs were similar in both indications. Blood levels during the first and fourth dosing cycles exhibited comparable values. All NSCLC patients tested negative for ADA, while no mCRC patients on DRL_BZ tested positive for ADA. Low incidences of ADA (8%) and NAbs (4.0%) were reported in patients on RMP. Overall, the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic parameters of DRL_BZ and RMP were found to be comparable. Clinical Trial Registration For BZ-01-002: CTRI/2016/01/006481.

Assessment of structural and functional similarity of biosimilar products: Bevacizumab as a case study

The antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab is a blockbuster therapeutic pharmaceutical product that is used to treat many different types of cancer including kidney, colon, rectum, lung, and breast cancer. As a result, multiple biosimilars have been approved across the various regulatory jurisdictions in India (>20 in number till date). The rapidly growing market and acceptance of biosimilars was the motivation to perform comparability study of bevacizumab biosimilars that are presently available in the Indian market. A comprehensive analytical and functional biosimilarity assessment has been performed to examine and compare innovator product of bevacizumab (Avastin-innovator product, Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd) and six biosimilars that are being marketed in India (Abevmy from Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Bevazza from Lupin Ltd, Bryxta from Zydus Cadila, Krabeva from Biocon, Ivzumab from RPG Life Sciences Ltd, and Advamab from Alkem Laboratories Ltd). Physiochemical characterization of drug products was performed with respect to their primary structure (intact mass, reduced mass, peptide mapping by LC-MS), higher order structure (secondary structure by FTIR, Far-UV-CD, and tertiary structure by Near-UV-CD, intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy), impurity profile (SE-HPLC, SEC-MALS, extrinsic fluorescence: size heterogenicity, degradation, stability; DLS: hydrodynamic radius; WCX-HPLC: charge variants analysis) and post-translational modifications by measuring reduced glycans through fluorescence dye analysis. Functional characterization was performed by SPR and cell proliferation assay. Further, chemometrics based quantitative evaluation of biosimilarity has been performed by combining the data obtained from analytical characterization platform. The analysis of the analytical, functional and chemometric results revealed significant levels of similarity, with biosimilar4 being the sole exception. Despite being within product specifications, Biosimilar4 displayed significant deviations with respect to critical quality attributes, including a lower proportion of monomer content, a larger percentage of basic charge variant species, and a lower proportion of aglycosylated glycoform.

Stability and Biosimilarity Assessment of Bevacizumab Monoclonal Antibody; Orthogonal Testing Protocol Coupled With Peptide Mapping-Principal Component Analysis.

Biologics are essential in cancer treatment because they stimulate the body's natural response to fight cancer, but they are expensive. Biosimilars are more affordable compared to patent biologicals, but it must be verified that they are as effective as their innovators. Characterization of biosimilars and assessment of interchangeability requires many data points for verification. The proposed study provides a quality assessment of two new bevacizumab (BVZ) biosimilars, produced by Amgen and Biocad, Inc., through the development and greenness assessment of an orthogonal testing protocol and purity indicating assay, including size-exclusion (SE-HPLC), reversed-phase (RP-HPLC), and cation exchange chromatography (CEX-HPLC) in addition to dynamic light scattering (DLS) and sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). SE-HPLC method was performed and validated to screen the BVZ monomer and its aggregates and/or fragments. Peak purity and system suitability parameters were calculated. Results indicate that the orthogonal protocol is a useful tool for assessing monoclonal antibody stability. It is a key criterion for biosimilarity assessment. DLS and SDS-PAGE results were compared to each other to reveal close retention times and banding patterns between BVZ innovator and its biosimilars. These results showed that Avastin® and the investigated biosimilars have the same profile in terms of peak area of related compounds within the acceptance limit and apparent molecular weight, and the SDS-PAGE technique was found to be the most eco-friendly technique among others. The results obtained highlighted the importance of assessing similarities and differences in ensuring the biosimilarity and interchangeability of the studied products. BVZ is one of the essential monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). BVZ biosimilars were evaluated by developing an orthogonal testing protocol and a purity-indicating assay. The size-exclusion (SE)-HPLC method was applied and validated to monitor the BVZ monomer and its aggregates. The results demonstrated the importance of assessing the stability and biosimilarity of BVZ.

In Silico and In Vitro Evaluation of Bevacizumab Biosimilar MB02 as an Antitumor Agent in Canine Mammary Carcinoma.

Canine mammary carcinomas (CMC) are associated with major aggressive clinical behavior and high mortality. The current standard of care is based on surgical resection, without an established effective treatment scheme, highlighting the urgent need to develop novel effective therapies. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key regulator of tumor angiogenesis and progression in the majority of solid cancers, including human and canine mammary carcinomas. The first therapy developed to target VEGF was bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, which has already been approved as an anticancer agent in several human cancers. The goal of this work was to establish the therapeutic value of MB02 bevacizumab biosimilar in CMC. First, through different in silico approaches using the MUSCLE multiple-sequence alignment tool and the FoldX protein design algorithm, we were able to predict that canine VEGF is recognized by bevacizumab, after showing an extremely high sequence similarity between canine and human VEGF. Further, by using an ELISA-based in vitro binding assay, we confirmed that MB02 biosimilar was able to recognize canine VEGF. Additionally, canine VEGF-induced microvascular endothelial cell proliferation was inhibited in a concentration-dependent manner by MB02 biosimilar. These encouraging results show a high potential for MB02 as a promising therapeutic agent for the management of CMC.

A Review of the Non-clinical and Clinical Requirements for the performance of a comparability exercise for Bevacizumab biosimilars

The development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in recent decades has enhanced the therapeutic options available to clinicians for the treatment of several diseases such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, and several others. Monoclonal antibodies are produced through the use of different biotechnological techniques and rely on living systems as platforms for their production. Accordingly, mAbs are large proteins with complex three-dimensional structures and each production platform is unique for each mAb and producing exact copies of each mAb is nearly impossible. With several mAbs losing their patency in the previous two decades, many pharmaceutical companies are pursuing the production of generic mAbs, or what is known as biosimilars. The originator Bevacizumab has lost its patency in 2019 allowing several pharmaceutical companies to introduce into the clinic several Bevaciumab copies with varying degrees of quality with some being inferior to the originator Bevacizumab in what is known as intended copies. These agents and due to the lack of the totality of evidence for their comparability exercise needed versus the originator Bevacizumab could expose patients receiving these medications to several risks including lack of efficacy, immunogenicity, and potential toxicity. This review aims to provide pharmaceutical personnel working on the development and commercialization of Bevacizumab biosimilars in addition to regulatory officers worldwide responsible for the regulatory review of bevacizumab application dossiers with the minimal technical requirements required to perform a full comparability exercise between any bevacizumab biosimilar and its reference product. It will build on the EMA and U.S. FDA guidelines and the current literature to provide a comprehensive analysis of the various aspects of the bevacizumab comparability exercise and ensure that the product is of similar quality to the reference biologic.